|
stuartj,
You are clearly in denial. For whatever reason, who cares. Most likely some kind of fag or some other mal content that has reason to challenge conventional wisdom. Whatever, your views do not fit any scientific viewpoint whatsoever. Rearden, Just plain BS. |
Quote:
I'm sure for every example I could give you, someone like sjf would come along and say "Well, that just looks haphazard and random to me". Truth in the the eye of the beholder, I guess. All I can say is that during my years of college and later in medical school as I dissected the human body and learned about the inner biochemical workings of it I was profoundly struck by the wonder of it and, to me at least, the obvious intelligence of the design (pun intended). |
IROC
Even an idiot can tell that there must be a God. So where does that leave you? Sub idiot??? |
I am fascinated by our senses as well as our conscience.
Our abilty to think, plan and execute ideas to completion is stunning. Nothing is like the human brain. It's the single most complicated thing in the entire known universe... KT |
Quote:
"Life clearly is the result of a designer. Any true scientist will agree with that." Please name some significant scientists (who are not associated Behe and the whatever its called institute) that say this. And, who designed the Designer? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
snowman prays to the God of Single Malt Scotch.
|
Quote:
...and... Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I thought dolphin brains were the most complicated.
They sure are tasty! |
Quote:
At some point you can no longer call something a reptile, just as at some point you can look at something else and identify it as a bird. An Eagle is a bird. A Hawk is a bird. A flying lizard is a lizard. A flying squirrel is a rodent. A human being with a jetpack is a nutcase. It is incorrect to call a flying squirrel a bird, because simply put...it's not. Likewise it is wrong to call a bird a lizard, because it's not. At some point the lizard must have become the bird. They're not interchangeable. Shrug. |
Quote:
Idiots (not a PC term, but let’s go with it anyways) are not capable of reasoning or logic. Let’s say the idiot cannot reason some simple logic like “if A, then B,” yet according to you, they can “tell there must be a god.” Since they cannot determine there is a god by reason or logic, they must determine it some other way. What is this other way? It must be something that is not reason or logic. What is left besides emotions? Some (most?) humans (including some idiots) are born with this “feeling” that a god exists. To me, this is just another confirmation of the theory that humans are hard-wired for faith. To these people, “there must be a god.” They cannot fathom a universe without one, as it is hard-wired into their brains. Some (Doug, remember him?) would say that his god implanted this feeling that he exists in the brains of these idiots. There is no evidence, none at all, for this idea, yet there is bountiful evidence (I presented a bunch of this on the “is there a god” thread) for the idea that our brains are hard-wired for faith. I’ll take the idea that has evidence behind it over the idea with none any day. Where does this leave people that can’t “tell that there must be a god?” Are they sub idiots, like the snowedman hatefully suggests? No, it just means their brains are not hard-wired for faith. I found another good quote for snowedman: “You know you’ve found the right religion when god hates the same people you do.” |
Quote:
Shrug. |
Likewise, i am sure.
Shrug squared. :-P I added this to my last post as you were commenting. In case you're interested: At some point you can no longer call something a reptile, just as at some point you can look at something else and identify it as a bird. An Eagle is a bird. A Hawk is a bird. A flying lizard is a lizard. A flying squirrel is a rodent. A human being with a jetpack is a nutcase. It is incorrect to call a flying squirrel a bird, because simply put...it's not. Likewise it is wrong to call a bird a lizard, because it's not. At some point the lizard must have become the bird. They're not interchangeable. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You also fail to realize that species are defined by breeding populations, not individuals. |
Quote:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1209139773.gif <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7gz1DIIxmEE&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7gz1DIIxmEE&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> |
Quote:
Having put way more thought into this subject than I should have, I have come to the conclusion that belief in god is exactly what Kang suggests. It is a function of the emotional make-up of the person and really has nothing to do with reality or logic. Either you believe or you don't and typically, no amount of evidence one way or the other will make you change your mind. It's because belief in god(s) is not a rational decision that people make - it's hard-wired into them. You can't choose to believe any more than you can choose not to. Believers interpret the world around them in a way that reinforces their faith. Nonbelievers simply see the world differently. Nonbelievers are not trying to avoid accountability or any of the other rationalizations, they simply do not believe. They don't have a choice. This is where the rubber meets the road, though. Once this revelation is understood, it becomes very clear that it is wrong to force your beliefs on other people (like teaching ID in schools). Your beliefs are a function of your particular emotional make-up and just because you believe them, that doesn't mean that anyone else should or that they are even real. IMHO, atheism is a good default position (for someone not hardwired for religious belief) because atheists generally do not advocate "beliefs" for things for which there is no evidence. We may push something like the theory of evolution, but at least there is evidence to support it, whether you agree with it or not. OK, I'm rambling now... |
Quote:
To make the statement "Birds evolved from reptiles" true, at some finite point in time-space a reptile had to lay an egg that, when hatched, gave birth to something that a scientist would no longer categorize as a reptile, but indeed, as a bird. Sure, a red-tailed hawk has a fancy scientific name (Buteo jamaicensis), but you know what? A biologist would look at it and say "That's a bird." Is a Buteo jamaicensis a transitional species? You bet your ass. All living species are transitional species. But know what? It's still a bird. It's not a reptile, it's not a fish....it's a bird. Observe the following excerpt: "Red-tailed hawks are native only to the Nearctic region. They are found throughout the United States and Canada, and into Mexico and Central America. Many birds are year round occupants although the birds of the far north migrate south during the fall to escape the harsh winter." http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Buteo_jamaicensis.html A flying Agama lizard (aka Draco volan) is not a bird...It's a reptile. BTW, for clarity's sake, these lizards do not actually fly. They jump and then glide. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:36 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website